User talk:Molinari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Molinari, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Looking forward to reading your contributions! --KF 12:02 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of proof of Erdős-Ko-Rado theorem

Hi Molinari, In case you're not "watching", I've added to the proof of the Erdös-Ko-Rado theorem, completing the second part. See the talk page for more info. Perhaps you could check what I've done? --Dbenbenn 00:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dbenbenn.

Interesting approach. I am not yet convinced that your method is sound, but perhaps I am just missing something.

Given

a

and

b

you take arbitrary $c \in A$ and define

c a

and

c b

as the intersections of

c

with

a

and

b

respectively. The claim is then made that

c a

and

c b

are disjoint. I don't see why. Indeed, if the proof is to work out we would expect both of them to contain

x

In the next step you start constructing a partial order containing

c

c a

, and

c b

as intervals. This can clearly be done. However I don't see how we can (necessarily) extend this order so as to contain

a

and

b

. I think we could if

c a

and

c b

were disjoint: we just put them at the "ends" of

c

in the order and tack

a

and

b

on these ends, as appropriate. We would need to count carefully to make sure there was room, but that shouldn't be hard. However, without disjointness I think we are in trouble.

Indeed, without disjointness we would have to arrange

c

$\ldots(\ldots c \ldots)c_ac_b(\ldots c \ldots)\ldots$

where $(\ldots c \ldots)$ represents the bits of

c

not in

c a

c b

. Now we cannot add

a

and

b

onto the ends.

I will give this some more thought after work this evening. It is entirely possible that your method works with a small adjustment.

Cheers! Molinari 01:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the flaw in what I added! It was blatent nonsense; I've taken it out. See Talk:Erdös-Ko-Rado theorem. --Dbenbenn 03:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I (finally!) responded to your question on Talk:Erdös-Ko-Rado theorem. Dbenbenn 07:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just sent you the papers by email. Drop me a line if they didn't come through right. dbenbenn | talk 16:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW

Hey there, I noticed that you had expressed interest in the article on the Potomac River on its talk page. Another contributor nominated the river for the US Collaboration of the Week and I would appreciate it if you would give the nomination your support. I feel with minimal effort, the article will reach featured status with the assistance of a team of editors. --Caponer 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third husband

I'm afraid you're wrong in your "correction" of the grammar on Bothwell's page. It was quite correct to place, after a comma, her third husband. At least it is correct in Britain and in countless genealogical books.David Lauder 09:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? It sounds wrong to my Australian English. You can change it back if you like. Molinari 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/l/User_talk%7EMolinari_74bb.html"

User talk:Molinari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion of proof of Erdős-Ko-Rado theorem

[edit] Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW

[edit] Third husband

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search